[ninetyninenine]

Well what would you need to see to prove understanding? That's the metric here. Both the LLM and the human brain are black boxes. But we claim the human brain understands things while the LLM does not.

Thus what output would you expect for either of these boxes to demonstrate true understanding to your question?

[mannykannot]

It is interesting that you are demanding a metric here, as yours appears to be like duck typing: in effect, if it quacks like a human...

Defining "understanding" is difficult (epistemology struggles with the apparently simpler task of defining knowledge), but if I saw a dialogue between two LLMs figuring out something about the external world that they did not initially have much to say about, I would find that pretty convincing.

[ninetyninenine]

Without a metric no position can be made. All conversation about this topic is just conjecture with no path to a conclusion.

[mannykannot]

This is a common misunderstanding, one also seen with regard to definitions. When applied to knowledge acquisition, it suffers from a fairly obvious bootstrapping problem, which goes away when you realize that metrics and definitions are rewritten and refined as our knowledge increases. Just look at what has happened to concepts of matter and energy over the last century or so.

You are free to disagree with this, but I feel your metric for understanding resembles the Turing test, while the sort of thing I have proposed here, which involves AIs interacting with each other, is a refinement that makes a step away from defining understanding and intelligence as being just whatever human judges recognize as such (it still depends on human judgement, but I think one could analyze the sort of dialogue I am envisioning more objectively than in a Turing test.)

[ninetyninenine]

No it's not a misunderstanding. Without a concrete definition on a metric comparisons are impossible because everything is based off of wishy washy conjectures on vague and fuzzy concepts. Hard metrics bring in quantitative data. It shows hard differences.

Even if the metric is some side marker where in the future is found to have poor correlation or causation with the the thing being measured the hard metric is still valid.

Take IQ. We assume iq measures intelligence. But in the future we may determine that no it doesn't measure intelligence well. That doesn't change the fact that iq tests still measured something. The score still says something definitive.

My test is similar to the Turing test. But so is yours. In the end there's a human in the loop making a judgment call.

[mannykannot]

This is rather self-contradictory: you insist we can't make progress with wishy-washy conjectures on vague and fuzzy concepts, and yet your entire argument in this thread for your claim that machine understanding of the real world has been achieved is based on exactly that: your personal subjective assessment of LLM performance!

In your final paragraph, you attempt to suggest that my proposed test is no better than the Turing test (and therefore no better than what you are doing), but as you have not addressed the ways in which my proposal differs from the Turing test, I regard this as merely waffling on the issue. In practice, it is not so easy to come up with tests for whether a human understands an issue (as opposed to having merely committed a bunch of related propositions to memory) and I am trying to capture the ways in which we can make that call.

You entered this debate saying "I think we are way past the point of debate here. LLMs are not stochastic parrots. LLMs do understand an aspect of reality", yet your post here ends with "in the end there's a human in the loop making a judgment call", explicitly acknowledging that your strong initial claims are matters of opinion, rather than established facts supported by hard metrics.

[ninetyninenine]

>This is rather self-contradictory: you insist we can't make progress with wishy-washy conjectures on vague and fuzzy concepts, and yet your entire argument in this thread for your claim that machine understanding of the real world has been achieved is based on exactly that: your personal subjective assessment of LLM performance!

No it's not. I based my argument on a concrete metric. Human behavior. Human input and output.

> I regard this as merely waffling on the issue.

No offense intended but I disagree. There is a difference but that difference is trivial to me. To LLMs talking is also unpredictable. LLMs aren't machines directed to specifically generate creative ideas, they only do so when prompted. Left to its own devices to generate random text does not necessarily lead to new ideas. You need to funnel got in the right direction.

>You entered this debate saying "I think we are way past the point of debate here. LLMs are not stochastic parrots. LLMs do understand an aspect of reality", yet your post here ends with "in the end there's a human in the loop making a judgment call", explicitly acknowledging that your strong initial claims are matters of opinion, rather than established facts supported by hard metrics.

There are thousands of quantitative metrics. LLMs perform especially well on these. Do I refer to one specifically? No. I refer to them all collectively.

I also think you misunderstood. Your idea is about judging an whether an idea is creative or not. That's too wishy washy. My idea is to compare the output to human output and see if there is a recognizable difference. The second idea can easily be put into an experimental quantitative metric in the exact same way the Turing test does it. In fact, like you said it's basically just a Turing test.

Overall AI has passed the Turing test but people are unsatisfied. Basically they need to just make a harsher Turing test to be convinced. For example have people directly know the possibility that the thing inside a computer is possibly an LLM and not a person and have the person directly investigate to uncover the true identity. If the LLM can successfully decieve the human consistently then that is literally the final bar for me..